I'm sorry this thread has gone unanswered so long; it's not for lack of interest on my part, but rather because it's a complicated question and therefore difficult to form an answer. Thanks for asking it, though! I think there were a number of reasons why they never introduced elected leaders in Narnia.

The first being that Aslan himself instated the monarchy; it would be very, very serious business to reject it for that reason. When Aslan tells Frank that he is to be king of Narnia, he says that he shall rule and name all of the creatures, and do justice among them, and protect them from their enemies when enemies arise. In the conversation, there is emphasis on: treating the creatures kindly and fairly, as free subjects; to bring up his children and grandchildren to do the same; to not have favorites among anyone or allow subjugation among his people; and to be first to charge and last to retreat should war come to Narnia.

I think that it's safe to assume that King Frank made good on his promise to teach his children and grandchildren likewise, since the first thousand years of Narnia seemed to be a profoundly happy era.

Another reason would be the fact that the rulers did not appear to exert a great deal of power over their subjects, and thus did not give anyone much cause to want to rebel or stir up a revolution. In fact, what we know about the rule of the Pevensie siblings is that they tended to free their subjects rather than impose new restrictions on them.

In LWW, we read that the Pevensie monarchs disposed of the remnants of the Witch's army, and that the four siblings "made good laws and kept the peace and saved good trees from being unnecessarily cut down, and liberated young dwarfs and young satyrs from being sent to school"—(homeschooling, anyone? )—"and generally stopped busybodies and interferers and encouraged ordinary people who wanted to live and let live." They protected Narnia and protected their subjects and largely let Narnians have all of the freedom they liked, so long as they didn't hurt anyone else in doing so.

Also, as far as I can remember, the citizens of Narnia were never taxed (though they did collect tributes from the giants and the Lone Islands), so there wasn't much cause for the familiar cry of "No taxation without representation!"

Finally, I think there are a couple other reasons that may have helped keep the Narnian monarchies from going sour. One is that Archenland was just a stone's throw away; if someone didn't like the rulership in Narnia, they could easily move there, especially considering that most of the subjects of Narnia are very nomadic by nature. The fact that there was another set of courts so close by allowed for some degree competition in the realms of law and arbitration, which would then encourage better service and wiser and fairer judges and lawmakers. Even if some rebellious individuals or groups didn't like Archenland rule either, there was always the possibility of trying one's luck in the Western Wild. Basically, it was very easy to leave Narnia if you didn't like it.

Secondly, humans were always a minority in Narnia, particularly in the early days, and as a group, they had no real ability to force their subjects to do something. (Some of the Narnian citizens are bears, lions, leopards, panthers, man-headed bulls, minotaurs, giants and centaurs! Not exactly creatures that you'll want to try to bully.) It seems that the rulers' power and influence over Narnia was largely vested in the fact that the Narnians looked up to them and respected them as leaders because they were genuinely wise and kind and just people. And further, everyone—the rulers and the subjects—knew that because Aslan had entrusted them with the task of ruling Narnia with those attributes, Aslan could take away their power if they abused it.

Whew, that's a lot of words! Anyway, those are my thoughts on this! Very interesting question.

Narnia was created as a Theocracy led by a Monarchy.
It was also written by a man who, I think, understood more of Monarchy than Democracy.

Although C.S.Lewis was born in Belfast, he seems to have had little or no part in the troubles which in his lifetime saw the creation of the Republic of Eire, and his own birthplace become the capital of Northern Ireland, which remained as part of UK. There is no doubting C.S.Lewis' own personal loyalty to UK throughout both WW1 & 2, when, in each war he played his own part in trying to help the war effort.

The Narnian books were published from 1948 to 1956, and that post-war era coincided with a time when the Royal family enjoyed huge popularity, more so than today. George VI, who had been obliged to be king after his older brother abdicated the British throne, proved to be a king with huge courage and fortitude, who remained in London throughout the Blitz, and who, with the assistance of his wife, the Queen Mother, provided both example and leadership in UK's fight against the Axis powers in WW2, not least in his relationship with Winston Churchill.

George VI died 8th February, 1952, and his daughter, the present Queen Elizabeth, was crowned the following year, 4th June, 1953. This was a huge event, the first televised British coronation, and captured the imagination of people all over the world. The previous year, her father had been sincerely mourned. In the creation of the Narnia stories it isn't hard to see a sneaking resemblance between King George VI and some of C.S.Lewis' Narnia characters. In particular, Archenland's King Lune's vision of what it means to be a King is echoed not only in King George VI's career, but also in what the RAF teaches its young officers about what leadership is, such as taking that extra mile to make that extra effort.

That doesn't explain why Narnia is a monarchy rather than a republic, but it does show why I think monarchy would be a logical choice for C.S.Lewis's Narnia.

I would guess because, as Wagga mentioned, Lewis lived in a country with a monarchy. And though there have been many examples of republics and democracies, none of them have lasted for a very long time. Even the Greco/Roman civilization bit the dust. Monarchies have a habit of doing that, too, but the British one has lasted a long time.

There seems to be more empressment in saying, "I am the Queen of Narnia," rather than saying, "I am president of Narnia, at least until the next election."

Which brings up another point. Had it been a republic, who would have had the vote? Would they have had a census, in order to see how high the voter turnout was? The possibilities for bureaucracy and red tape would have been endless.

Overall, I think I'm glad that Lewis presented his world as a much simpler one.

Secondly, humans were always a minority in Narnia, particularly in the early days, and as a group, they had no real ability to force their subjects to do something. (Some of the Narnian citizens are bears, lions, leopards, panthers, man-headed bulls, minotaurs, giants and centaurs! Not exactly creatures that you'll want to try to bully.) It seems that the rulers' power and influence over Narnia was largely vested in the fact that the Narnians looked up to them and respected them as leaders because they were genuinely wise and kind and just people. And further, everyone—the rulers and the subjects—knew that because Aslan had entrusted them with the task of ruling Narnia with those attributes, Aslan could take away their power if they abused it.

This was what my mind turned to first. Narnia is made up mostly of creatures; talking animals, dryads, centaurs, giants, dwarves, etc. Quite a few of these creatures have their own, small societies built up, but I don't think we hear of any formal governments in Narnia aside from the ruling monarchs. I don't think most of the creatures of Narnia would've been interested in maintaining the kind of government which was dependent on its citizens participating actively. Worse, in a society where there are creatures that are significantly bigger and more powerful than others, I could see that getting abused.

That's why Narnia depends on a wise, Aslan-appointed monarch to rule--one who follows the guidelines that Aslan gave to King Frank and Queen Helen at Narnia's creation. I think that's another reason why the Narnians hated the Telmarines so much when they came to Narnia--they tried to impose a government more like that of Archenland or, worse, Calormen. (Well, this is in addition to the fact that the Telmarines tried to wipe them out. ) Actually, I wonder if that's the reason why the Narnians and the Telmarines couldn't just get along--the Telmarines insisted on their own form of government, and the Narnians weren't interested. But since the Narnians were in "a state of some disorder", they couldn't arrange a suitable resistance.

There seems to be more empressment in saying, "I am the Queen of Narnia," rather than saying, "I am president of Narnia, at least until the next election."

Which brings up another point. Had it been a republic, who would have had the vote? Would they have had a census, in order to see how high the voter turnout was? The possibilities for bureaucracy and red tape would have been endless.

I must say, the idea of Narnian political campaigns seems amusing. Especially Jadis running for political office. "Winter sports all year round! Lifelike statues for everyone! Free Turkish Delight!"

I, too, am glad that Lewis presented the Narnian world as a simpler place and a simpler government. It's very refreshing! In some ways, it reminds me a little bit of ancient Israel—that is, before the people decided they wanted a king and God warned them that the king would start counting everything and they all would soon be miserable. The kind of monarchy that's described in those verses doesn't seem anything like the monarchies in Narnia. Rather, it seems that they may be more closely aligned with the earlier system of judges, especially considering what Ryadian pointed out about many of the Narnian creatures having their own, small societies... tribes, if you will, likely with their own wise members for sorting out minor disputes within the group.

There seems to be more empressment in saying, "I am the Queen of Narnia," rather than saying, "I am president of Narnia, at least until the next election."

That is a good point. And as you also say, just who would have voted? Mostly the population of Narnia was animals who were content to live their lives undisturbed. So long as their King or Queen could keep things running they would be happy. Even when Jadis caused some distress, the animals and other creatures they were distinctly divided into the camp that went along with the White Witch and others who opposed her in secret.

Eustace was republican by sentiment - he said. And so typical of his place of origin, he thought that Lucy and Edmund were putting on airs when they were addressed as kings and queens. Some of that same attitude comes across in MN when the mob following Jadis riding the Hansom Cab heckled her as the Hempress of Colney Hatch, or Aunt Letitia's dismissal of Jadis as a brazen hussy. That of course was at a time when Queen Victoria reigned and republics weren't quite so fashionable as they became after WW1's finish in 1918.

I must say, the idea of Narnian political campaigns seems amusing. Especially Jadis running for political office. "Winter sports all year round! Lifelike statues for everyone! Free Turkish Delight!"

The trouble is with that delightful picture is that Jadis wouldn't be in a government where opinions had to be asked. Only hers counted, you see. That is why Jadis would be a worse ruler than even Miraz, because Miraz, at heart, was human with a human capacity for contrition and guilt. I think Jadis had more in common with Hitler, Mussolini and other dictators more suited to republics than monarchies.

Actually there is one character which defies the status quo. That would be the discontented Shift who spent so much time exploiting Puzzle and who certainly had the instincts for making political changes. Could Shift have made Narnia a republic?

Funny question.
Here is why.
Aslan like Christ is the perfect monarch. He is flawless.

There is one explicitly republican character in the Chronicles of Narnia--Eustace Scrubb, prior to his undragoning. "They call him a King. I said I was a Republican but he had to ask me what that meant!" Republics are simply unknown in the world of Narnia, and meanwhile, in our world, monarchies are less and less respected. Why is that? Lewis himself gives a fascinating explanation in another writing:

We Britons should rejoice that we have contrived to reach much legal democracy (we still need more of the economic) without losing our ceremonial monarchy. For there, right in the midst of our lives, is that which satisfies the craving for inequality, and acts as a permanent reminder that medicine is not food. Hence a man's reaction to monarchy is a kind of test. Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach---men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.

Can you imagine a better description of Eustace before his adventures as a dragon than as one "whose taproot in Eden has been cut", who doesn't notice the cosmic dance of the heavens or hear the symphony of nature? He doesn't understand monarchy because he doesn't understand magic, and Narnia can't understand a world without monarchy because it's so steeped in magic.

The German sociologist Max Weber said that in a world where power is legitimized by tradition, "the world remains a great enchanted garden", but in our modern, rationalistic age, where everything needs to be justified by instrumental reason, the world has become "disenchanted". Accompanying this disenchantment is a bureaucratization of power. Custom and tradition no longer legitimize anything; everything has to rest on a proven, rational foundation, and this leads to a "legal-rational" system of government where, instead of power residing in a charismatic individual or a family patriarch (like a king), it is vested in institutions governed by charters and constitutions. This is bureaucratization, and it traps its subjects in what he calls the "iron cage" of modernity. (To understand what he means, think of all the paperwork and red tape it takes to get anything done legally nowadays.)

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote in a letter to his son during WWII that he was an anarcho-monarchist. He explained that this meant he didn't believe in Government as some sort of entity with a capital G; government should only be a verb, never a noun. He didn't believe, in other words, in the bureaucratic state; instead we should have a king who can, as Tolkien put it, sack his Vizier if he didn't like the cut of his trousers.

Why is this desirable? I think The Voyage of the Dawn Treader gives us a good idea as to why when we get to the Lone Islands: It's become a helpless bureaucracy where everything has to be scheduled and done according to the silly, trudging rules of a lumbering governmental machine. And the funny thing is that even though the Lone Islands still practice slavery, no one on it is particularly malevolent or malicious like Jadis or TLOTGK is (though Gumpas would have coldly murdered Caspian given the chance); indeed, the slave traders are actually fairly decent to their captives, probably because, as good capitalists, they know that undamaged property will turn a better profit. It isn't so much that the individuals on the Islands are evil, but bureaucratization has locked them into a system of evil.

Now, imagine if Caspian had to go through long, legal channels to abolish slavery. Probably by the time he accomplished this, a lot more slaves would have been carried off by the Calmorenes and much evil would have been done. But because Caspian can overturn a table and depose Gumpas simply at will, the evil of slavery ends the moment he says it ends. This suggests to me that Lewis had similar political views to his friend Tolkien. It also may be what begins Eustace's conversion away from republicanism into monarchism: Monarchism saved his hide from slavery. We can also easily imagine him becoming someone like Gumpas, someone with a natural mean streak using the machinery of government to belittle others. Instead, his adventures on the Dawn Treader cause this former republican to tell the owls that he's proudly "the King's man" and that he'll have no part of any plan to dethrone him in The Silver Chair.

Tolkien also says that the problem with democracy is that it puts people into power who want to be in power. The medieval rule for ordaining bishops was that the only men eligible to be bishops were the ones who said they didn't want to be bishops ("nolo episcopari"), whereas we put people into power who go on lengthy campaigns to try to prove that they should be in power. This is another reason there could never be a republic in Narnia. Grasping for power in Narnia always leads to destruction. Caspian the Conqueror seizes Narnia and begins the process of "disenchanting" it; Miraz seizes power by murdering his brother; Miraz in turn is killed by two power-hungry lords, which is actually what causes the defeat of the Telmarines--their utter lack of unity; Nikabrik tries to seize power to overthrow the Telmarines and this leads him to actually turn to the White Witch, ending badly for him, naturally.*

In contrast, Caspian and Cor both feel inadequate to the task of governing Narnia, and this is exactly what makes them eligible to reign. This is the precedent Aslan set from the beginning when he picked a humble Victorian cabbie (the kind of person no one ever notices) to be the first king of Narnia and the ancestor of both the monarchies. And Peter even tells Caspian when they first meet that he has no interest in keeping Caspian from his rightful throne; he's here to put him on it. The rightful monarchs don't seize at power. This is the advantage of a divinely-appointed monarch over a republic.

Of course, a monarch also has a lot of responsibilities attached to his station. King Lune explains to Cor at the end of The Horse and His Boy:

For this is what it means to be a king: to be first in every desperate attack and last in every desperate retreat, and when there's hunger in the land (as must be now and then in bad years) to wear finer clothes and laugh louder over a scantier meal than any man in your land.

Consider also how Reepicheep warns Caspian that the Dawn Treader's crew will tie him up to stop him from shirking his duties as a monarch, and not because they're revolting against him; instead, "it will be the truest loyalty" for the crew to do so. It is actually loyalty to Caspian and respect for his monarchial authority that would prompt the crew to physically subdue him. Just because you're king doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want; it actually means the exact opposite.

Another reason I think Lewis, and Narnia, could be characterized as "anarcho-monarchist" comes from this quote from Mere Christianity:

It is easy to think the State has a lot of different objects—military, political, economic, and what not. But in a way things are much simpler than that. The State exists simply to promote and to protect the ordinary happiness of human beings in this life. A husband chatting over a fire, a couple of friends having a game of darts in a pub, a man reading a book in his own room or digging in his own garden—that is what the State is there for. And unless they are helping to increase and prolong those moments, all the laws, parliaments, armies, courts, police, economics, etc. are simply a waste of time.

In other words, the government should more or less stay out of people's business and exists mainly to allow them to go about doing the common, ordinary things that normal people do. A monarchy is, in this sense, a lot less restrictive than a bureaucratic state which is overly concerned with every aspect of its citizens' lives. As he also wrote:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

Now, I would say that the description of the Golden Age of Narnia sounds a lot like an "anarcho-monarchist" condition, very similar to Lewis' description of the ideal state: The kings and queens "generally stopped busybodies and interferers and encouraged ordinary people who wanted to live and let live." In contrast, the head of Experiment House ends up becoming a Member of Parliament at the end of The Silver Chair, and she seems to be the quintessential kind of tyrant Lewis described in that last quote: A meddler and a busybody who knows what's good for you better than you do, to the point where "Experiment House" has actually become a haven for bullying because it is more interested in psychologizing about them than punishing them. Notice that this, too, is ended by King Caspian barging in and overthrowing everything, just like slavery in the Lone Islands.

I think this fact is exactly why Narnia could never be a republic: If it were, it would be governed by people like her and like Gumpas. As it stands, the Aslan-appointed monarchies allow the different species and societies in Narnia to more or less go on about their business, governing themselves while still remaining loyal to the visible symbols of Narnian unity, the monarchs (such as the Parliament of Owls). Only a system of government ordained by Aslan himself could ever appeal to all the creatures of Narnia, who know him to be their only hope.

*It's worth mentioning that the dwarfs also form their own republic of sorts in The Last Battle by breaking off from Tirian's rule: "The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs!" But really, they want to have all of Narnia for themselves. This seems to be a common affliction of the dwarfs. Nikabrik is willing to summon the White Witch because dwarfs had it better under her, even though ironically it is under Caspian's reign that a dwarf will be a heartbeat away from the monarchy when Trumpkin becomes his regent, which is a much higher and nobler role than any dwarf ever had with Jadis, who mostly just used them as elevated slaves. I wonder if this is a reference to the dwarves of Tolkien, who seem to be inveterately jealous of Elves and Men because they were directly created by Iluvatar and awoke before they did, though the origin myth of Narnian dwarves is quite different than that of the dwarves in Tolkien's--and, thus, our--world.

Wagga knows her history. I certainly don't, though. XD

Monarchy works in Narnia because the kings and queens are legitimately good people. Not in the case of Miraz, but ultimately Aslan intervenes and sends the Pevensies. You can tell that Lewis thinks a lot of birth-right and royal bloodlines. I think it's all rot. ;P I don't believe there is any mystical quality in anyone's genes which allows them to be a better leader than anyone else, and I'm glad monarchy has fallen out of favour. Making someone king because their father was king is the type of tradition that leads to no ability to change the status quo without a bloody rebellion. That being said, monarchy is an enchanting and romantic idea that fits in a world of sword-fights and dragons. Am I captivated by the idea of a king like Caspian, Rilian, or Tirian whom I could serve and always trust to do the right thing for the people? Absolutely. But in the real world, where Aslan cannot just send us magical help, I would never want just one person to be in charge of everything.

Not that I think republics are perfect or anything... I hate politics. T__T

Especially Jadis running for political office. "Winter sports all year round! Lifelike statues for everyone! Free Turkish Delight!"

LOL.

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote in a letter to his son during WWII that he was an anarcho-monarchist. He explained that this meant he didn't believe in Government as some sort of entity with a capital G; government should only be a verb, never a noun. He didn't believe, in other words, in the bureaucratic state; instead we should have a king who can, as Tolkien put it, sack his Vizier if he didn't like the cut of his trousers.

What an interesting insight into both C.S.Lewis and J.R.R.Tolkien! And yes, kings should be strong as both authors demonstrated in their writings. Sometimes I've found the intricate histories Tolkien worked out in his appendices of LOTR more fascinating than the books, themselves. And I suspect that for Tolkien his chief kingly character -Aragorn - is his ideal of what a king should be.

The main reason for having a king, any king, was to have a successful military leader, and an unsuccessful one might pay a huge penalty, as Tolkien so vividly illustrates in those appendices. C.S.Lewis also finds the need for strong military leaders, to co-ordinate and defend his Narnian people. That is how kings got to be so necessary. Sometimes as part of religious rites, kings in some RL communities were not sacked but were ritually put to death, having served their purpose.

Not that every successful military leader needed to be a king. Athens, where democracy originally started, had strong leaders called tyrants, but not like how we see tyrants today. One particularly strict leader was called Draco, from whom we get the idea of draconian laws. Solon, considered wise, made laws to reorganise the old tribal structures, and this in turn, led to the ideas of citizens, ordinary men fighting in armies, and the first ideas of democracy when the soldiers wanted a say in which wars they got to fight in.

When the Romans disposed of their conquering Etruscan kings they chose to rule with a council called a Senate, made up of the so-called patricians, plus a couple of tribunes to speak up for the ordinary people, the plebeians. But I wouldn't have called this Roman republic democratic as we understand it. As various successful leaders of the senate got more powerful and more competitive, the Romans ended up with first dictators then, after the death of Julius Caesar, with an Imperator, Augustus Caesar, the first Emperor of the Roman Empire, which led, centuries, even a millenium afterwards, to the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire.

In none of these three empires was it automatic that the succeeding emperor would be the son of the previous emperor. In some cases there was too much family infighting, and a lot more "mysterious" deaths to rule out good leaders than could be attributed to co-incidence. A lot of bad emperors came to power that way, something like Miraz. Some others (Claudius) came to power because they were literally the last bloke available to do the job, and others were "adopted" to succeed, during times of some really Good Emperors. In many cases the Emperor was chosen by the army. And even in Christian times, until the rise of the Hapsburgs, the Holy Roman Emperor was often chosen by a council of Electors.

I thought I'd mention this, as there seems to be some misapprehensions about monarchies, republics and democracies. Maybe I'm just flattered by PhelanVelvet's kind remarks. In today's Real World, surviving Monarchies seldom rule independently of a democratically elected parliament, and not every Republic is Democratic, even when it claims to be. A couple of world nations even appear to have hereditary presidents

. And today's monarchs, whatever powers they retain, would not rule as absolutely as depicted in Dr_Cornelius' post. Lewis, himself, points out the dangers of kings who can sack 'their Viziers if they don't like the cut of their trousers'. Don't forget his HHB depiction of the Tisroc having a nice quiet yarn with his Vizier, Ahoshta, and his son, Rabadash, whilst Aravis and Lazaraleen hide behind the divan he is sitting on.

Monarchy works in Narnia because the kings and queens are legitimately good people. Not in the case of Miraz, but ultimately Aslan intervenes and sends the Pevensies. You can tell that Lewis thinks a lot of birth-right and royal bloodlines. I think it's all rot. ;P I don't believe there is any mystical quality in anyone's genes which allows them to be a better leader than anyone else, and I'm glad monarchy has fallen out of favour. Making someone king because their father was king is the type of tradition that leads to no ability to change the status quo without a bloody rebellion.

Yes, the kings and queens of Narnia were legitimately good people, but only when they ruled by the will of Aslan, by law, and by the will of the citizens of the country where they are king or queen. This is also the ideal of monarchy in UK, in Lewis' real world, and why it still exists there, and in the 15 other countries where the Queen of UK is also the Head of State, including Australia. And yes, she does have the rarely used authority to sack incompetent prime ministers, governments etc., should it be necessary to do so.

The main advantage of a constitutional monarchy is the chain of accountability, a bit that Lewis also emphasizes in his depiction of Narnia. I'll have to go back and check in SC, but I think Caspian X ruled with a council, headed by Trumpkin, who was regent when he left Narnia. Bloodlines do still matter, as in Narnia, as UK has its Law of Succession, which establishes who is expected to reign and why. Bloodlines, established by record-keeping and history, are eminently provable, you see.

It works like this: Australia, for instance, holds regular elections, and the incoming Prime Minister leads his winning party in making laws for the nation. The defeated parties form the Opposition, to represent those citizens who succeeded in electing them, to ensure those laws are good ones and that the winning parties don't get too carried away with themselves. When Parliament has passed the law it is ratified by the Governor-General, nominated in Parliament, who, like the Prime Minister, can also be removed if he/she is not considered suitable after all. This Governor-General is answerable to Queen Elizabeth II, who in turn is answerable to the Commonwealth, the UK Parliament, the law, and also to God. So we are quite as democratic as we need to be, and despite having an overseas and apolitical Queen as our ultimate head of state, we haven't yet had much need for a "bloody revolution" to change the status quo if we so choose. It also helps that she, herself, takes no part in our elections or in those being staged in UK.

You see how this works also in VDT. In the preceding novel, when Prince Caspian had to win back his throne from his usurping uncle Miraz, Narnia is in a bit of a mess, and its Telmarine rulers have abandoned shipbuilding and the arts of sailing and navigation. The economy is not working too well, possibly because Narnia hasn't been collecting the taxes owed to it by the Lone Islanders, whom Miraz may have forgotten. So when Caspian X pays the Lone Islands a visit, he finds that Gumpas has really let things slide, and has been getting income from permitting slavery. Caspian, as king and as Gumpas' boss, has the authority to step in to put a halt to this state of affairs. But if Miraz, back in Narnia, had been doing his job properly, Gumpas would never have been allowed to get away with what he did.

And come to think about it, the reason why Narnia never became a republic, is very likely because in that world it is personal discipline, personal choices, responsibility and accountability for our actions which is what is important in Narnia, and this can be so much better demonstrated by monarchy as it is understood by most, than is the case even with our better republics. When push comes to shove, we are all kings and queens of our own lives. We have to rule ourselves and maybe lead families, regardless of what sort of government we live in. Besides, in WW2, and afterwards, when Lewis wrote the Narnia series, the idea of republics such as that of the defeated Germany, in particular, or Stalin's USSR, did not really appear to advantage.

Getting back to your statement about monarchies and inheritance, yes there can be problems about "making someone king because their father was king". But don't you believe for one second that there aren't mechanisms set in place to deal with these problems. Before William the Conqueror, English kings were generally chosen from the ruling family by the Witanegamot, a council of the chief men of the land. So whatever William the Conqueror claimed, by killing the legitimate king, Harold II, in battle, he set back the growth of democracy in England by centuries.

And it wasn't as if he ordained clearly who was to be the next king after him. Even though he had three sons, two of whom became kings, his line almost came to an end, because his two grandsons, the sons of Henry I, were drowned in a storm when their ship sank. The legitimate successor then was his daughter, Matilda, though this was contested by her cousin, Stephen, the son of a daughter of William the Conqueror, because Matilda wasn't expected to lead armies. There have been worse succession crises. In 1316, when the French King, Louis X (Hutin) died, he was succeeded by his son, Jean I, who would not be even born for another 5 months, and who then died only 5 days after his birth.

We see this question of the problem of succession in the Silver Chair. Prince Rilian should have been working with his father, learning the ropes, you might say, when he decided to go on a picnic instead. But on that picnic his mother was killed, and subsequently, he, himself, went missing. Then we see the workings of LOTGK.

You might consider the question posed by Prince Rilian. He could rule by conquest, with LOTGK as First Lady. Or he could rule by law and by right, with accountability to Aslan. Which is the better way of ruling a country? And could I ask, would your conclusions apply equally to a republic as it also would to the monarchy depicted?

Using Narnia as an example, I don't think that Cor was inherently suited to being king just because he was next in line to the throne. I mean, it makes for a good story, but there is just no way I can believe that someone has a better ability to lead just because of which womb they were birthed from. Being an atheist and all, I also don't believe in religion being involved in government/politics, so the king or queen ultimately answering to God means nothing to me. In some countries people are oppressed by the government trying to uphold what they consider God's word.

Like I said, I don't think republics are perfect, or even good, either. I'm sure people are elected to offices in the U.S. government based on others doing favours/"putting in a good word" all the time. The U.S. has some of the stupidest laws I've ever heard of and I disagree with its bureaucratic nonsense all the time. I have no fealty to any one type of government, or country, for that matter.

I wasn't thinking about Narnia as a monarchy with a parliament, though. I would be happy to live in the U.K. or Australia, that wouldn't bother me at all. I just didn't consider the possibility of a council in the Narnian government and was thinking that if Caspian felt like making striped socks, dancing, or sandwiches illegal, he could and no one could say anything about it. I wouldn't want a system where that could be possible.

Using Narnia as an example, I don't think that Cor was inherently suited to being king just because he was next in line to the throne. I mean, it makes for a good story, but there is just no way I can believe that someone has a better ability to lead just because of which womb they were birthed from.

That is also a good point. But that is also the point of brothers and sisters. Just because they share the same mother and father, doesn't make them equally suitable to rule Narnia. Using Narnia as an example, Miraz wasn't necessarily going to be an equally useful king to his elder brother, Caspian IX, because of the blood relationship they shared. Nor should Jadis have assumed that she was as entitled to rule as much as her sister in MN.

Cor and Corin were separated as brothers. Corin should have been a good king since he spent the next decade or more being raised with the expectation he would be the king eventually, whether he liked it or not. Yes, Cor's return does make a lovely story, one of my favourites. But Cor got no nurture at all, compared to either Aravis or Corin. In fact, Bree never stopped pointing that fact out. No wonder Shasta, as he was then, got upset and sulked.

But whether or not we agree that his ancestry doesn't prove anything about his ability to become king, it did give Shasta identifications to deal with, regardless of his treatment at the hands of an ignorant old fisherman called Arsheesh. And it was his manner of dealing with those identifications and from his willingness to learn something from his upbringing, which makes him able to rule effectively, not his genetic make-up alone.

Shasta had no reason to believe he was anyone special before Anradin's arrival. He was unhappy living with Arsheesh, all the more so as he didn't feel the sort of emotional connection with Arsheesh he felt he ought to be able to do with his natural father. This lack of connection could be explained by saying it was because of Arsheesh being grasping and hard-fisted. But it was Anradin pointing out Shasta's lack of any resemblance to Arsheesh which betrayed their lack of a biological connection. It was Shasta's resemblance to his twin brother which allowed him to be picked up in the streets of Tashbaan, and it was their similarities which allowed Shasta/Cor to be friends as well as brothers. And it was that resemblance which allowed King Lune to recognise his son despite Shasta being clothed in rags and exhausted from running.

Being an atheist and all, I also don't believe in religion being involved in government/politics, so the king or queen ultimately answering to God means nothing to me. In some countries people are oppressed by the government trying to uphold what they consider God's word.

No, even if I do believe in God, it would not necessarily affect me whatever the powers that be happen to believe. The point is, the Queen of UK has to believe in God and in Jesus Christ, since she is the temporal head of the Anglican church, even if she isn't the spiritual head of it. As the appointed and crowned head, she cannot change her mind and become a Roman Catholic, proclaim she is atheistic or start wearing a hijab, any more than the Pope can say he has stopped being Catholic. It is hard enough that she and her ministers have tried to change the Law of Succession so that this particular provision which applies to her, no longer affects any of her family members let alone the people they marry. That legal change takes all 16 countries, including Canada, and in some cases, also their states and territories, to pass what is called the Perth Agreement of 2011. And so far it is only Western Australia, where the Perth Agreement was formulated, which is stopping this amendment being fully ratified. It has been passed everywhere else affected.

Yes, I can agree that "in some countries people are oppressed by the government trying to uphold what they consider God's word". In Last Battle we also see how this works when Shift used the Narnians' beliefs to betray them to the Calomenes, by imposing a false system of belief on them. But then, in Shift's case or, in particular, Rishda's case, did he have such a thing as a conscience? Which is something I'd sincerely hope our kings, presidents and politicians have.

And yes, I can agree that there should be a separation between church and state. This is the provision which allows people to respect other people's right to believe what they want and which guarantees that people don't have to be converted to Muslim because the government says so. And it is also why neither Caspian nor Cor would be much use as kings should they have banned snow dances, particular kinds of socks, or made eating sandwiches illegal. Don't kings have better things to do?

Mod Note:

This topic seems to be veering a bit off course. This topic is meant to be discussing a republic in Narnia, and seems to be veering into the history of democracy in our world. While this is a worthy conversation, this is the Talk About Narnia section, and the conversation needs to focus on the Narnian aspects of government.

Discussing the political situations of our world is explicitly prohibited by the rules, which states that political discussions are banned. Every conversation concerning politics that has happened on NarniaWeb has descended into name-calling, rudeness and anger.

If you wish to talk about the historical differences that exist between different political systems and differing countries, the place to do so would be the Cultural Curiosities thread in the Spare Oom.

So please keep these things in mind as you continue to talk about the Narnian government. Thanks all!

-Moderating Team